branding OpenAI Hunts Down Companies Using GPT

[Lox]

Hundreds of companies riding on the all-access AI wagon have been using GPT in their products for the past three years. Hundreds more have emerged or created new brands using not just the technology, but also now part of the vernacular ChatGPT, as well as the GPT, GPT3, and GPT4 acronyms in their names. OpenAI now wants to put an end to that.

read more

https://twitter.com/x/status/1654095756200931328

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Funny how there's always a gaggle of people that say "It's generic though" to anything popular that comes along.

SiteGPT is clearly riding on the coattails of ChatGPT so that's the angle they're going at here "ChatGPT for every website".

 

[Finest]

Funny how there's always a gaggle of people that say "It's generic though" to anything popular that comes along.

SiteGPT is clearly riding on the coattails of ChatGPT so that's the angle they're going at here "ChatGPT for every website".

While these guys are no doubt riding on ChatGPT success, I think "GPT" is not even trademarked. I could be wrong, though.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Everyone knows that GPT relates to ChatGPT (OpenAI). It's time for people to realise it.

 

[Andreas B.]

gonna be interesting what the authorities decide.

Transformer however, is a very popular term among google AI research (since 2017).
https://ai.googleblog.com/2017/08/transformer-novel-neural-network.html

So that would mean, that openAI (GPT) is building upon another popular term, which was not introduced by them, but by google.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

gonna be interesting what the authorities decide.

Transformer however, is a very popular term among google AI research (since 2017).
https://ai.googleblog.com/2017/08/transformer-novel-neural-network.html

So that would mean, that openAI (GPT) is building upon another popular term, which was not introduced by them, but by google.

One minute it is argued that OpenAI can't be afforded protection on 'GPT' because it's only part of the name ChatGPT... Even though they likely coined the acronym. Plus it is MAJORLY well known worldwide and everyone knows their product as GPT or ChatGPT...

Then next it is argued that Google can have protection over a single letter because the word that the letter stands for in GPT is a "popular term" in some barely known circles and isn't even used as a brand at all.

 

[Andreas B.]

" in some barely known circles and isn't even used as a brand at all. "

Might be.

Transformer is an important & famous term among AI researchers & scientists; it is neither a Trademark nore has huge public meaning.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

While these guys are no doubt riding on ChatGPT success, I think "GPT" is not even trademarked. I could be wrong, though.

They have one pending.

 

[domain hacks]

I own gpt40.com

Only 36 more GPT editions and I will be rolling in dough...

 

[matemp]

"ChatGPT" is a distinctive brand name for OpenAI's particular chatbot system that is based on GPT technology.

However, "GPT" itself is a type of technology (albeit one that was invented by OpenAI). It involves much more than just ChatGPT...even if we just look at OpenAI's own other offerings (e.g. GPT-1, GPT-2, Dall-E, etc.).

The "GP" (generative pretraining) has been a concept in machine learning for many years. The "T" (transformer architecture) was invented in 2017. Thus, the issue for the USPTO will be whether or not combining the "GP" with the "T" is too descriptive or even inherently generic to be "distinctive" to OpenAI.

Sometimes, general terms can become trademarks, by becoming "distinctive" to one company. Microsoft was able to do it with "Windows" (in the field of software, of course). And "booking.com" was able to trademark the word "booking" (for reservation services) in certain contexts. The issue will be whether OpenAI can successfully make the case that they've achieved something similar for the term "GPT" itself. I really remain doubtful of that, given the term's frequent usage as being a type of LLM and a general framework for generative AI.

All that said, I suppose we'll all know for sure soon enough...when the USPTO decides.

 

[matemp]

Well, the USPTO has now posted their initial decision rejecting the "GPT" trademark application (#97733259), although OpenAI can still dispute/appeal it. See excerpt pasted below, from the document on the USPTO website's trademark database:

"...such wording is commonly used in applicant's industry to refer to a particular type of software featuring artificial intelligence (AI) that generates responses based on a pool of pre-existing resources that the software uses to generate its responses to user questions. Some examples of such use are:

'As AI technology advances, the development of GPT (Generative Pretrained Transformer) models has become increasingly popular. In this article, we will take you through the process of building your own GPT project, from planning to deployment.' [URL citation];

'We have been using a GPT model to explain our insights to operators as a part of BMCHelixGPT, and we have now started to decorate our root-cause insights with ticket resolution-based prescriptions. We constrain our GPT with a domain and tenant-specific model that continuously learns resolutions from subject matter experts (SMEs) in the organization—hence the phrase 'expert of (your) systems'—and prompt our GPT with root-cause analysis we conduct using observational data in prior steps in our AI architecture.' [URL citation];

'One example of this technology is RoomGPT.io, an AI-powered virtual staging tool. RoomGPT.io uses GPT technology, which stands for Generative Pretrained Transformer, to generate realistic images of staged rooms. This technology is able to create images that are so realistic that it can be hard to distinguish them from actual photos.' [URL citation];

...In addition to being merely descriptive, the applied-for mark appears to be generic in connection with
the identified goods and/or services. 'A generic mark, being the ‘ultimate in descriptiveness,’ cannot
acquire distinctiveness' and thus is not entitled to registration on either the Principal or Supplemental
Register under any circumstances ... Therefore, the trademark examining attorney cannot recommend that applicant amend the application to proceed under Trademark Act Section 2(f) or on the Supplemental Register as possible response options to this refusal..."

 

[MadAboutDomains]

UpWell, the USPTO has now posted their initial decision rejecting the "GPT" trademark application (#97733259), although OpenAI can still dispute/appeal it. See excerpt pasted below, from the document on the USPTO website's trademark database:

"...such wording is commonly used in applicant's industry to refer to a particular type of software featuring artificial intelligence (AI) that generates responses based on a pool of pre-existing resources that the software uses to generate its responses to user questions. Some examples of such use are:

'As AI technology advances, the development of GPT (Generative Pretrained Transformer) models has become increasingly popular. In this article, we will take you through the process of building your own GPT project, from planning to deployment.' [URL citation];

'We have been using a GPT model to explain our insights to operators as a part of BMCHelixGPT, and we have now started to decorate our root-cause insights with ticket resolution-based prescriptions. We constrain our GPT with a domain and tenant-specific model that continuously learns resolutions from subject matter experts (SMEs) in the organization—hence the phrase 'expert of (your) systems'—and prompt our GPT with root-cause analysis we conduct using observational data in prior steps in our AI architecture.' [URL citation];

'One example of this technology is RoomGPT.io, an AI-powered virtual staging tool. RoomGPT.io uses GPT technology, which stands for Generative Pretrained Transformer, to generate realistic images of staged rooms. This technology is able to create images that are so realistic that it can be hard to distinguish them from actual photos.' [URL citation];

...In addition to being merely descriptive, the applied-for mark appears to be generic in connection with
the identified goods and/or services. 'A generic mark, being the ‘ultimate in descriptiveness,’ cannot
acquire distinctiveness' and thus is not entitled to registration on either the Principal or Supplemental
Register under any circumstances ... Therefore, the trademark examining attorney cannot recommend that applicant amend the application to proceed under Trademark Act Section 2(f) or on the Supplemental Register as possible response options to this refusal..."

Their recommendation is the supplemental register, which doesn't mean it's not protected. Also the examples that they gave for others using it contain the trademark of the registrant (chatgpt)... I'm sure they will be able to take steps to prove that gpt is synonymous with their company. Watching this space...

 

[matemp]

Their recommendation is the supplemental register, which doesn't mean it's not protected. Also the examples that they gave for others using it contain the trademark of the registrant (chatgpt)... I'm sure they will be able to take steps to prove that gpt is synonymous with their company. Watching this space...

Actually if you look at the final paragraph from my excerpt, it looks like the Examiner said "GPT" doesn't even qualify for the Supplemental Register...

Now "ChatGPT" is quite another matter -- for that application (#97733261), the USPTO did in fact recommend the Supplemental Register. (The Supplemental Register doesn't actually offer much protection; it mainly serves to give a company some time to try to build up a case for "distinctiveness" in the future...)

I think the USPTO is correct about "GPT" (as that's a broader technical term...), but "ChatGPT" is actually quite "distinctive" to OpenAI so IMO that one deserves full protection without having to even deal with the supplemental register...

 

[MadAboutDomains]

There's literally zero mention of gpt online without reference to open ai. I think they will just need to demonstrate that and it'll be pretty straight forward.

I doubt that 3 people complaining about it to them and then them referencing what is basically a few spam websites that mention GPT is enough to skew the overall picture. Imho.

Yes you're right, it does ultimately say that the examiner can't recommend it for the supplementary register, but then they don't even have a valid specimen for the goods and services in question...

 

[matemp]

There's literally zero mention of gpt online without reference to open ai. I think they will just need to demonstrate that and it'll be pretty straight forward.

I doubt that 3 people complaining about it to them and then them referencing what is basically a few spam websites that mention GPT is enough to skew the overall picture. Imho.

Yes you're right, it does ultimately say that the examiner can't recommend it for the supplementary register, but then they don't even have a valid specimen for the goods and services in question...

There are many sources online that refer to "GPT" in a more generic way than just OpenAI's versions of it. I don't have the access level here to be able to post links, but they're really not hard to find...and many are fairly neutral sorts of sites.

Also, it's a common technical term used in scientific publications...including, ironically, one paper by OpenAI researchers in which they say that they regard GPTs as essentially a synonym for today's large language models (LLMs). (FWIW, that article is called "GPTs are GPTs," as a pun on the fact that "GPT" can also stand for general-purpose technology...)

Admittedly, the 3 sources cited by the Examiner are not the best, but there's no shortage of others out there...

 

[jamesau]

This is actually more of a TOS issue. All these AI clones popping up are using the ChatGPT API to deliver a thinly-veiled-layer they call a product. If you want to keep access to that API you need to follow the rules that OpenAI set. Otherwise they will revoke your API access and you have no product.

 

[matemp]

This is actually more of a TOS issue. All these AI clones popping up are using the ChatGPT API to deliver a thinly-veiled-layer they call a product. If you want to keep access to that API you need to follow the rules that OpenAI set. Otherwise they will revoke your API access and you have no product.

That's true. As a TOS matter, they can simply say as a condition of being their API customer, that you agree to not use that term in your name. That's really a contract matter, separate from trademark law.

But of course, if a business uses instead somebody else's GPT to support their AI service -- such as Cerebras-GPT, or GPT-J -- then OpenAI's TOS shouldn't be an issue.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

There are many sources online that refer to "GPT" in a more generic way than just OpenAI's versions of it. I don't have the access level here to be able to post links, but they're really not hard to find...and many are fairly neutral sorts of sites.

Also, it's a common technical term used in scientific publications...including, ironically, one paper by OpenAI researchers in which they say that they regard GPTs as essentially a synonym for today's large language models (LLMs). (FWIW, that article is called "GPTs are GPTs," as a pun on the fact that "GPT" can also stand for general-purpose technology...)

Admittedly, the 3 sources cited by the Examiner are not the best, but there's no shortage of others out there...

My thought on this is how many people mentioned it before open ai did? There must be a barrier to prevent a term from being registered that goes beyond "three sites mentioned it". There has to be dates, there has to be numbers. They have to take into account if overall the term most likely refers to a particular product to the common man. Etc

For example, if after 5 days of PEPSI putting a filing in for their trademark and I create 5 pages with a few recipes, one containing mud and water and say that "I'm making a pepsi" meaning a concoction of brown water", using very simple logic I can make pepsi generic.

Pepsi came up with the name, they have a product called it but I've said it means something new. What's the difference?

GPT wasn't known commonly until open AI made it "famous". Thoughts?

 

[matemp]

PEPSI would be different, because that is an "inherently distinctive" word -- and thus it's easier to get trademark protection for it.

If a word/phrase is inherently descriptive, then it's harder for an applicant to get protection. Not impossible, though, as I mentioned above Microsoft's "Windows" example... The key is whether the relevant population(s) think of the term mainly as a brand vs. mainly as a description.

Just because a company helps to popularize a term doesn't necessarily mean the term becomes their brand. Only if the relevant public stops thinking of the term primarily as a descriptor.

 

[decades80]

I agree with MadAboutDomains. The fact is majority of GPT domains got regged after the news of ChatGPT. 99.99% of the population only knows GPT abbreviation from ChatGPT product. I wonder how many of you defending generic use of GPT have heard of GPT prior November 2022?

 

[MadAboutDomains]

The key is whether the relevant population(s) think of the term mainly as a brand vs. mainly as a description.

Just because a company helps to popularize a term doesn't necessarily mean the term becomes their brand. Only if the relevant public stops thinking of the term primarily as a descriptor.

I would argue that nobody knows what gpt means.

Whereas everyone knows that PEPSI means Proton Echo-Planar Spectroscopic Imaging

 

[matemp]

... PEPSI means Proton Echo-Planar Spectroscopic Imaging

In the beverage field, Pepsi was named for the idea that it can help to alleviate dyspepsia (upset stomach). That level of suggestiveness still keeps it in the "inherently distinctive" realm.

Trademarks are specific to each field of use; for example, "Apple" is quite distinctive for technology, but would be generic for the fruit...

 

[MadAboutDomains]

In the beverage field, Pepsi was named for the idea that it can help to alleviate dyspepsia (upset stomach). That level of suggestiveness still keeps it in the "inherently distinctive" realm.

Trademarks are specific to each field of use; for example, "Apple" is quite distinctive for technology, but would be generic for the fruit...

Other things will have been intended to alleviate dyspepsia. Thus not distinctive at all really. If they had chosen apple for their name it'd be more distinctive for an upset stomach remedy imho.

 

[matemp]

... 99.99% of the population only knows GPT abbreviation from ChatGPT product...

In the computer science field, the term is understood as being more general. And, even OpenAI wouldn't quite say that GPT is the same as ChatGPT...since OpenAI has several other GPTs of their own.

In any case, I suppose we'll all just have to wait and see how the USPTO (and maybe the courts) end up ruling...

 

[matemp]

Other things will have been intended to alleviate dyspepsia. Thus not distinctive at all really. If they had chosen apple for their name it'd be more distinctive for an upset stomach remedy imho.

Trademark law distinguishes between "suggestive" and "descriptive" -- lots of marks are suggestive of what the product is, and that's fine. But for example, if Pepsi was instead named something like "dyspepsia alleviator drink," that would be descriptive and thus not inherently distinctive.

Even then, a descriptive mark can potentially get trademark protection...but only if the public becomes educated about the brand (like Microsoft did with Windows...). Whether or not OpenAI can do that is now the question, which the USPTO and/or courts will decide...